Is free will possible in a deterministic universe?

Are you arguing that every person who kills another person has to kill them and everyone else who doesn't kill, has to not kill?

What if you take everyone's consciousness out of the equation. Does the end result change at all?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

src: https://web.stanford.edu/~rhorn/a/topic/phil/artclTrapsOfFormalLogic.html

The seven of traps that derive from traditional logic are:

• The Forever Changeless Trap. In this trap we think of the current condition as being the same forever.
• The Process-Event Trap. This trap leads us into the error
  of thinking in terms of object-like "events" where we would
  do better to think in terms of processes.
• The Solve It by Redefining It Trap. This could be called
  the Definition Can Do It Trap in that it attempts to solve
  problems by redefinition alone.
• The Independent Self Trap. In this trap we separate
  organism from environment, ourselves from our
  interdependence with others.
• The Isolated Problem Trap. In the grip of this trap we
  regard problems as unconnected to their wider contexts.
• The Single Effect Trap. In this trap we think that we can
  cause a single effect with no "side-effects."
• The Exclusive Alternatives Trap. Traditional logic tends to
  make us think in terms of either-or analysis. Many situations demand that we juggle more than two alternatives.
  
  
  

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Just one? Okay. It's late, just got back, and won't have time to respond to your original responses, but I'll start with this...

But since the underlying operations do not rule out the possibility of "ruler" there is no illusion. It's not rocket science: "illusion" is for those things that are perceived contrary to the way they are. Nothing suggests "ruler" is contrary.

The ruler is not a physical object, hence the logic, while valid, is simply unsound. If you accept the premises then you should accept the conclusion, but in this case the assumptions are not accepted. Specifically number 1. The ruler is produced by computer code is not a physical object. It takes a screen, and the electrons hitting that screen, to produce what we interpret as a ruler.
There is nothing inherently within the computer code that is mutually exclusive to the interpretation it produces.

Sure, you just need to show that the argument you have exampled is equivalent to the one otherwise being discussed, specifically with regard to the contradictory nature of what is produced and the underlying nature. Do that and you may be on to something.

Drivel. You merely need to include within the "computer code" the physical aspect of electrons and the screen. When you do that you then need to compare the physical ruler with the underlying nature of the system that has created it, and whether one contradicts the other. If it does then the appearance is considered illusory.
It's not rocket science.
Since your example, when considering the totality of the system, does not appear to contradict the nature of the system, no illusion is apparent.

Care to try again?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

And yet you can't see that the arguments in what you quoted are fundamentally different to the initial formulation, that they start from different assumptions, take a different approach, and thus different assumptions.
The arguments you quoted are an argument from determined interactions to more complex interactions. They start with the conclusion already reached that determined interactions are not free. You, on the other hand, wish to use that assumption as the starting point, and apply it to the deterministic universe, to the complex deterministic interactions that you are so enamoured with, that you so love to extol the virtue of via your appeals to complexity.
I.e. you are taking a subsequent argument, as already explained, that does start with with deterministic interactions not being free, because that much has already been proven through the logic previously provided.
It is only, it seems, your dishonesty, which abounds throughout your responses, that tries to use these subsequent arguments, these follow-up arguments, as if they are the initial argument. They are not. They use the conclusion of the initial argument as a starting point.
Your blinkered view, your dishonesty, is crippling.

 

No it isn't. It is only a definition of supernatural when contextualised by the premise of a deterministic universe. How many times does this simple fact need to be explained to you before you are able to grasp it. There are possibly an infinite number of universes where the notion of "must" does not exist, where "able to do other than it must" has no relevance because there is no "must" about what one does. It is nothing other than you a priori linking the notion of "able to do other than one must", or "able to do otherwise", to a deterministic universe that generates the assumption of the supernatural. Drop that a priori assumption, whether it is due to belief in an agenda or otherwise, and your claim simply vanishes for the nonsense it is.
But you won't see that. You haven't seen it for 6+ months. Your inability to see it is a weakness in your argument that cripples you. And tanks any possibility of actual discussion here, or anywhere, it seems. Shame. But that's on you, not me, nor Baldeee, nor DaveC, nor Capracus etc.

 

When one starts with an argument that takes as a premise the conclusion of a previous argument, one can make it look like any conclusion is a premise. Go figure. Your dishonesty in deliberately not identifying the premise in those subsequent conclusions as a conclusion from a previous argument is telling. You have boxed yourself into such a corner that your dishonesty must plumb new depths. Pity.

 

Finally an interesting question on the matter. Thank you, honestly.

I am arguing that every person who kills was predetermined to kill, taking into account who they are. Every person who doesn't kill was predetermined not to kill, taking into account who they are. Is that sufficient clarification? I doubt it is, not because I doubt your honesty, but because these are complex questions, and such a simplistic answer that I have provided is likely not sufficient. And I guess I'm anticipating a more nuanced question in response? I.e.

It depends upon one's view of p-zombies, whether the consciousness is an integral part of who the person is or not. If not then the consciousness effectively becomes irrelevant and the action one takes while conscious is merely transmitted to the consciousness after the event. If it is integral to the person then an absence of the consciousness (or the process that gives rise to it) would remove part of the process/system that gives rise to the activity otherwise observed. I.e. it would be like a watch without a certain cog: unlikely to function in exactly the same way.

So in that regard, and second-guessing a follow-up question (that may or may not actually follow), in as much as one's consciousness is responsible for one's actions (compared to the actions had one not been conscious) then one can claim that one (i.e. the conscious one) is responsible for one's actions. But this doesn't impact on the relative freedom involved (as defined in the original argument by Baldeee, as defined as "ability to to do otherwise"). It merely assigns responsibility to the process that generates the actions relative to the outcome without those processes.
In gross terms, if a ball (X) is moving from A to B but another ball (Y) hits the ball and thus results in it going to C instead, the other ball (Y) could be held responsible for X moving from A to C rather than A to B.
It's relative, it's subjective, but it seems to work as a means of assigning responsibility, even while there is no actual freedom involved (freedom as defined: ability to do otherwise).

But thanks (seriously) for a question that whether you agree, accept, or laugh at, the response, has a chance of moving the discussion along.



Anyhoo - I'm back from a formal dinner, and too tired to respond to the rest of James R's subsequent analysis to my rebuttal, and will likely have limited chance tomorrow to continue. Apologies.

 

Sarkus and Baldeee,
The definition of freedom that you are using is I believe, pretty much useless.

• To do other than you do
• able to do other than one must
• able to do otherwise

This is because it states simply that you must do as you do and if you have done it then there was no alternative.

after all we can only do what we do yes?

It says nothing about freedom of choice except to state that once chosen and acted upon there is no alternative.
It maintains the logic trap that you are stuck in...
========
What if the actor can not genuinely choose until he learns how to?
How does that change your definition?

 

Perhaps the definition of freedom could be better if it actually included the choosing (predetermining an action) factor.
A choice made by a decision, is predetermining an action... yes?
ie.
change,
able to do other wise.
to
able to choose other wise.

Also if there is no actual choice then there is no decision to make. So if freedom is an illusion so to is decision making.

 

If you have ever studied child psychology you would know that the act of deciding and choosing is a learned behavior.

• We are normally born with the capacity to learn how to choose.
  
• The more we learn the better the choices.
• So any definition of freedom when it relates to human choices MUST include the capacity to learn how to.

 

Quack, let me help you out with expressing yourself more clearly. Try something like this...

Perhaps the definition of freedom would be better if it included the concept of choice?

A choice resulting from a decision is predetermining an action.

I'm replacing "able to do otherwise" with "able to chose otherwise".

If there is no actual choice then there is no actual decision to make, so if freedom is an illusion so is decision making.

Quack, getting though your tortured method of expressing yourself isn't helping your argument any.

Regarding you last statement...yes, that is exactly what he is saying and has been saying for months just as you have been saying the same, oddly worded, things for months.

You're both wrong however because you both are binary in your positions.

 

Thank you for your assistance however,
Seattle, let me help you with your intolerance of those who have a different way of expressing them selves..

The definition of freedom that you are using is I believe, pretty much useless.

• To do other than you do
• able to do other than one must
• able to do otherwise

This is because it states simply that you must do as you do and if you have done it then there was no alternative.

after all we can only do what we do yes?

It says nothing about freedom of choice except to state that once chosen and acted upon there is no alternative.
It maintains the logic trap that you are stuck in...
Perhaps the definition of freedom could be better if it actually included the choosing (predetermining an action) factor.
A choice made by a decision, is predetermining an action... yes?
ie.
change,
able to do other wise.
to
able to choose other wise.

Also if there is no actual choice then there is no decision to make. So if freedom is an illusion so to is decision making.

I have only been highlighting the fallacy of non-inclusive logic...
Simply put,

• If freedom to choose is a myth then so too is the logic of determinism.

Determinism, in the context used in this thread, is actually stating that it is itself an illusion.
Which is kinda sad given how much members here at sciforums have invested in it.

This is because for logic to be considered logical it must involve the genuine choice to consider the logic as illogical.
Logic is only logical if there is the genuine ability to decide as to it's logicality or not.

Also
Can I ask you Seattle how important do you think learning to decide and make choices is regarding the issue of human free- will in a deterministic universe?

How can your complaint of binary logic be supported if it is unable to be assessed by a human who has the genuine freedom to do so?

 

Is hard determinism an illusion?

 

That harebrained definition is certainly not mine.

If you are so black and white
regarding determinism why aren't you
so black and white about the standard rules of grammar, yes?

I'm not playing the "in a deterministic universe" game.

Who cares how important learning is when you are talking about free will vs determinism? Free will includes the ability to make bad decisions so they are two separate issues.

Logic can be assessed by a human with free will.

 

so you are just trolling this thread then...
why are you even posting if you have no interest in the topic under discussion?
Just for your edification:
the topic of this thread is:
Is free will possible in a deterministic universe
If you don't want to discuss the topic then what are you doing?

eh?

well done! However, I would add a further qualifier:

Logic can be assessed only by a human with freewill....

With out human freewill there is no logic... period.

 

As usual, in your weird way, you have said nothing.

 

yes you are right.... The last English teacher I had Mrs Pebbles (grade 4 primary), said more or less the same thing...and said I wouldn't amount to much... well guess what... she was totally right...

 

hee hee and YOU think I have a problem....

 

Yes so I guess we agree, yes?

 

certainly! I agree that YOU think that I have a problem..